Because none of the choices include the by-far most popular cameras sold today - the digital point-and-shoots, with autofocusing zoom lenses.

I suspect that's what was meant by "fixed lens," but that's the wrong term - a fixed lens is one of fixed focal length (although there are apparently people who use that term differently [about.com], but still not for point-and-shoots), so that choice really covers what's found in most smartphones (another obviously missing choice). Really, 2 choices for film cameras? Is the ghost of Ansel Adams present on/.? The Kodak (and Fujifilm, and Ilford) film businesses are almost kaput, mostly limited to art and technical markets.

I picked "other" for the same reason. I have a rather morally old Canon S5 IS, which is neither a DSLR nor a pocket camera. It's what was called a "bridge" camera at the time. It does have a body, you can put a limited number of accessories on it, but it's not a DSLR.

It's an adaptation from my native language. It means something that still works perfectly, just no longer fits in the definition of being useful much. Like a 486DX in the world of i7.Sorry about the confusion I created:)

Google Translate picks "obsolete" as the proper translation, however in my language it's not correct to use this term. My camera is certainly not obsolete, it takes great pictures, does its job just well, functions like a charm (well the zoom slider/rotating button is a bit stuck). It's just that it's 6 years old. Therefore "old":)

That's mostly incorrect. A SLR is primarily defined by having an optical path via mirror and prism from the lens to the viewfinder and that the mirror is switched out of the light path to the film/sensor when the photograph is taken, blanking the viewfinder during the exposure. That is the reflex part of SLR.

The S5 IS has an electronic viewfinder and the picture displayed is read off the sensor. There is no optical path and no mirror in the system.

Could simply mean things like the GoPro or the really cheap pinhole style cameras (eg used in some CCTV systems). GoPros are becoming more popular every day, to the point of every self-shot sports video being shot fisheye style.

No, it's pedantic wankers insisting that obscure technical definitions of terms used in a general discussion are the only possible definition. It's always been the bane of online discussion. Whenever some jumped up little dickhead learns a technical meaning, he suddenly insist on bringing it up every time someone uses the more general meaning.

Compared to film even the most expensive 35 mm size digital is pretty damn sorry, right up to offerings by 'blad.Gone are the cool tricks of photography like 3 color sliders and bulb settings, f stops and other things that made art happen at the camera level.Digital has a long way to go to be cool.On the other hand, I recall an article, maybe a year or two ago where some geek made a view camera with a flatbed scanner for a back.THERE are the missing pixels that todays digital cameras lack. The slow speed of

I have a Canon 5D Mk II, with 35 mm CMOS, and I frequently use the camera with e.g. 50 mm lens and set it to f/1.4 to get plenty of bokeh. There's also a bulb setting. I use that every time I attach my camera to a telescope and do a few minutes of exposure. And of course you can set white balance to whatever you like, or what exactly do you mean by "3 color sliders"?

And plenty of places show that digital has long ago surpassed 35 mm film in quality, and also larger formats (with less margin though).

Alternatively, all of my other consumer grade cameras have always been pretty limited regardless of what technology they were using. For most people that aren't using pro-grade equipment not much has changed and people that are willing to pay for better equipment can get more interesting (even artsy) results.

I think the question as asked was ambiguous.Looking at the results, it seems clear that most people interpreted it as "favorite for your everyday still-image use", not necessarily what "favorite for professional still-image photography". Most probably didn't even notice "still-image".

There's no question that a 120mm film is vastly superior to a tiny pixellated sensor, and also allows attaching wider lenses letting more light in, further improving the result.

It only means that to some newcomers to photography. It also means a lens with a single (fixed) focal length.

Google "fixed lens," and the majority use that term to refer to a non-zoom (fixed focus) lens. It's only the newbies that use it any other way. I suppose someone with no photographic knowledge heard the term, assumed it meant something it didn't, started using it incorrectly, and created an ambiguity.

Non-interchangeable lens would be an appropriate, non-ambiguous term for what you're describing.

Somebody should really start selling variabele-zoom fixed-focus lenses (and invent a fancy name for those). I can't get rid of this nagging feeling of incompleteness because of this missing permutation in my lenses collection. That, and a left-wheel drive car.

Plus the excellent chdk firmware to open up features like raw mode and extra-long exposures and all kinds of other neat stuff usually found on high-end cameras.

Not to mention the underwater case ( Canon WP-DC16 ) that is (was?) available for it at a fraction of the price of other cameras and gives you full functionality and a lot more portability into harsh environments.

I recently picked up a used Canon T2i, but it actually doesn't seem to take substantially better pictures than what I could capture with my A720IS. I'll still be getting plenty of mileage out of that Point and Shoot.

I agree. I got a Canon for my wife, and she loves it. I think it's great for the times I've used it, but I'm not really that into taking pictures. The best feature about it is that it is very responsive. Power on to snap a picture is only a couple seconds. The picture is taken as soon as you press the button, and the autofocus feature works pretty fast. Not at all like some other point and shoot camera's I've had. I had a Nikon one that would literally take seconds after pressing the button to take a pict

Canon point and shoots are definitely the best of the point in shoots. I prefer and shoot Nikon for my DSLR (D700) but my quick little pocket camera is a Canon. It was a $149 Wal Mart special about 5 years ago and still does a great job.

Just because don't need to carry an extra gadget, don't need to take professional photos, and the N9 camera is good enough for most usual things.

The N9 would have been my answer for my good-enough-always-with-me camera, but mine died, and getting repair service in the US isn't looking good. (Anyone with any helpful info along those lines, let me know.)

I used to work in a cell phone repair shop for a while while I was between jobs. We used to have good results with Nokia warranty service, but this was a little while ago. You should check their website. Generally if the unit is still under warranty you can send it in and they will send you back a refurbished unit. If your warranty is already voided somehow, you could try taking it to a local cell phone repair shop. If you're in the DC area, just ask I can give you some very specific advice. Make sure

It's not just a matter of convenience for me - photography is one of my great failings, and no matter how expensive a camera I invest in, I'll still suck at it. So I stick with the phone, because at least then I can partially blame the crappy camera for my extra crappy pictures.

Favourite? That's the time I turned my bedroom into a camera obscura to watch the transit of Venus. Certainly not my "most used" or even a "slightly practical" camera however. (You can't beat it on etymological veracity though.)

- Full frame DSLR bodies are ludicrously expensive.- All the glass worth owning is designed for full-frame - smaller DSLR formats get slow and/or soft zooms and a smattering of primes in useful focal lengths at useful speeds. Non-full frame DSLR owners are a despised afterthought, despite driving most of the profit.- All of the mirrorless systems with great glass at good prices have crummy bodies.- All of the mirrorless systems with great bodies have overpriced/slow/crummy/all-of-the-above glass.- Modern primes are stupidly overpriced. Adjusted for inflation, N/C/S/P lenses with mediocre quality are pricier than equivalent Leica or Carl Zeiss lenses sold in the '90s.- Ditto flash units.

I sold my Contax kit, I'm ready to take the plunge after sitting on the sidelines for a while - Fuji XE-1 with the kit zoom looks like the (reluctantly chosen) winner. It takes gorgeous photos, the zoom is sharp, contrasty and fast, the other lenses in the system are superb and (for primes) reasonably priced, the old-skewl controls make me feel at home - I just need to put up with craptacular EXF and The Worst Autofocus in Scotland.

Yeah, but to get an equivalent field of view at an equivalent speed, you're stuck with a wide angle design for a normal lens, and an ultrawide for wide angle. This introduces size and expense and has tradeoffs in quality and speed. (Thing start to work in favor of the smaller sensor once we start talking telephotos, tho...)

Yeah, but to get an equivalent field of view at an equivalent speed, you're stuck with a wide angle design for a normal lens, and an ultrawide for wide angle. This introduces size and expense and has tradeoffs in quality and speed.

Yeah I know. I have an XS (yes, I know it's a cheap body, I want to upgrade to the 60D) and with the kit lens the 18mm "wide" angle becomes ~28mm because of the 1.6x crop factor.

Thing start to work in favor of the smaller sensor once we start talking telephotos, tho...

I'm pretty sure they made the 7D just for this, because it shoots 8 FPS but has a crop sensor so it would be ideal for sports, wildlife, etc. Like I said above I have the XS but my 200mm becomes 320mm with the crop factor.:)

There's actually a pretty good range of ultra-wide APS-C lenses now. Canon has a 10-22mm. Nikon has a 10-24mm. Sigma has an 8-16mm, a 10-20mm, as well as circular and diagonal fisheyes. Tokina has a 11-16mm. Tamron has a 10-24mm. There's others. They're very proud of them too, judging by their prices.

I went a cheaper route and got the Samyang 8mm fisheye. When I want rectilinear output, I convert it with hugin.

That's why I leave all my 1.4 prime lenses and 2.8 zooms at home.I always bring my wonderful Fuji X100 with me.Its lens is better than 99% of the lenses I see on the streets, and its sensor is at least as good as many DSLRs out there.It's also an engineering marvel : http://www.finepix-x100.com/in/story [finepix-x100.com]

That is why nowadays all cameras also shoot HD video. You get lens interchangeability and high resolution video with just a fraction of the price of a semi-professional video-camera. For those with artistic interests, of course. All others can pay even less for a camcorder.

35 mm are not conventional in the DSLR-world. Only the high-end models feature such a large "full-frame" sensor that only the very dedicated or the professionals are willing to pay (they usually cost more that $1000). I voted "none of the above" since my Sony Alpha 57 has a 23.5 mm x15.6 mm sensor that works fine for me, which makes it my favorite.

I have an old VoigtlÃnder Bessa, and the results are pretty cool. But my go-to camera above all is my Pentax 67, with either 90mm or 165mm lens. It handles great and the results are wonderful. It's not the most portable camera in existence, but that's the only drawback.

The most useful camera might be the one you always have with you, or one that can be made ready quickly, and that's probably not a DSLR.

It might be but, then again, it might not. Sometimes, not having the right gear means that you don't have a shot. I don't mean: "the color is a little off and image is a little grainy". I mean: "what's that spec supposed to be?" or "what's that blur supposed to be". Quite often, it means "what's that blurry spec supposed to be?".

My travel hobby is wildlife photography. There is almost never enough light as I would like. The subject is hardly ever close enough. I get good stuff with my 500mm lens on m

The closest I've found to a camera I really like is a fixed long-zoom lens with a digital sensor, like the Olympus UltraZoom line or the Fujifilm Finepix HS20 EXR (my current). The main thing I dislike about them is the lack of proper manual focus on them. Some of the better ones offer a manual override which (with the aid of some sluggish servos) let you set the focus wherever you want. But you can't just twist the barrel back and forth and snap the image into focus, or easily follow-focus a moving obje

A small, lightweight, almost weatherproof film camera, with an incredibly sharp 35mm lens. We have two SLR camera with several lenses, two digicams, two camera equipped smartphones , and a DSLR on the way, but none of them matches the joy and easiness of taking pictures with the small Olympus. Chapeau to the engineers who designed it!

Because all three have different answers. I enjoy using a digital SLR camera the most, I can do lots of inter sting things and get the best results from a situation. My favorite image quality still comes from large format conventional film, but cost of equipment and processing is a barrier. While of course my phone camera is the most convenient.

Broadly, my favorite camera is the one that gets me the picture I want. Sometimes that just means being "the one I have with me", but sometimes it takes good optics, pulling lots of light and having plenty of control.

I bought a DSLR with a 35mm sensor. After a brief flirt with a digital compact when my film camera broke down, I decided on full frame as the APS-C type dimentions looked really weird compared to film, and even more so on a computer monitor.

The only problem is 35mm sensors cost many hundreds more than an APS-C sensor. but you got paid back for it with lovely images in the dark with much less noise.

One thing that the switch to digital has done, is to allow more experimentation in photography, as you are not

Mirror-less interchagable lens camera, that's where it's at. You can get them in crop or full frame (nex VG900) AND you can mount any full frame manual lens on them. I have an nex with a fuck ton of minolta lenses. They are cheap to buy and give you very good quality for your dollar. Cutting R out of DSLRs was the best thing that happened to digital cameras,

Some days my 35mm Minolta x700 and digital Sony Alpha are in my bag, some days they are accompanied by the Kodak Stereo, JEM or Brownie vertical medium formats, Brownie Bullet, Holiday, or the Agfa Isolette (120 film horizontal). One day I'll finish building my large format camera. But the one that gets the picture is the one that's there when I need it. If that's the 8MP phone camera (I have interchangeable lenses on it, magnet mount rules), then that's what's there. Vignette on Android does a nice job of mimicking developing stunts like bleach-skip on slide film.

If I have time to pick a camera, it depends on the subject. The 35mm and dslr are great for macro shots of lace work because I don't have a macro set for the medium or have finished the large format camera. They can attach to bellows, be adjusted a ton, and I've gotten a large selection of lenses for them (25mm to 300mm, lots of double/tripler rings and mount adaptors make that about 1200~1500mm). The vertical rolling medium format box cameras work great for outdoor well lit portraits in black and white, and the detail that 25~100 ASA film can capture on that large of a surface is huge. The other medium formats are nice for odd shots, quircky things, and odd development processes that may or may not work. Developing in instant coffee, for example, because who cares if the DOF sucks and the focus is out a bit when the process is going to distort everything even more.

Much more popular than the Full frame 35mm DSLRs, and has been in existence much before the mirrorless cameras came into existence.The poll should have had the following options on the interchangeable lens spaceFull frame DSLRCrop sensor DSLR (will cover 1.5, 1.3. and 1.6 crop factor DSLRs)EVIL - Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens

Bought it around 10 years ago. It fits into my motorcycle suit sleeve pocket so it's always with me on trips. The picture size is just fine for viewing on the 'net which is where a majority of my pictures end up anyway.

I bought some Canon thing a few years back because it was on sale at one of the computer stores but it crapped out halfway through my motorcycle trip and I had to buy a cheap HP camera at OfficeDepot. Turns out if you increased the resolution to the max, you had to have it on a stand or it'd

I have a love/hate relationship with this cam though. Love the size, the viewfinder and even the 'retro' looks. But the slowness of the autofocus really hampers the experience of the camera. Especially in artificial light. Here's to hoping that X100s fixes the issue once and for all

Best bang for your buck is to find a decent Powershot that's compatible with CHDK [wikia.com]. It lets you shoot RAW, view histograms, motion detect, script for time lapse, etc. I've never been disappointed by Canon's quality. Now if I could just train myself to stop leaving the damn things in bars.

You're right about that, buuuuuuuut... I meant body size. (As opposed to the generally smaller-bodied interchangeable lens cameras with 4/3 and Micro 4/3, etc.) Polls, dangit, need to have more of an explanation box for parsing options;)

As you say, the sensors are mostly smaller than 35mm film, but it's the body/system I'm getting at. There are more and more full-frame DSLRs, too.

(On my mind, after getting intrigued by a lot of cameras I can't currrently afford / justify / rationalize, including cinema cameras, like the very intriguing Blackmagic Cinema Camera, which one-day-eventually may come in an active MFT mount, in addition to the promised but not yet delivered MFT passive version. Until a month or two ago, I had no idea how many options there are now in MFT, and I've ordered a refurbed Panasonic.) Like computers, seems there's never a good time to buy -- my order caused the universe, or at least Amazon, to now offer the better-for-video Lumix GH1 for only slightly more than I paid for a G2. Ah, well;)

What I think the poll options are intended to mean, for those of us into photography who keep picking at them:

1. Small format film camera
2. Medium or large format film camera
3. Permanent lens digital camera.
4. DSLR
5. Compact System Camera (or SLD, Single Lens Direct-view. The name for this category is still solidifying.)
6. Cell phone camera
7. Cowboy Neal
8. I'm going to complain about lack of options

What's wrong with what he said, for the nitpicky:
1. "Film camera (35mm or smaller film)" Nothing wrong. Covers the majority of film cameras, 35mm, APS, 110 roll film, Kodak Disc, etc.
2. "Film camera (film > 35mm)" Again, nothing wrong. Covers all the common aspect ratios of 120 roll film, including all those popular medium formats like Hasselblad, Mamiya, Yashica, Rolliflex, etc. (or many of these can take medium format sheet film). It also covers on up to viewcameras - press cameras (Graflex) and studio cameras, 4 x 5, 8 x10, etc. Or George Lawrence's 8' x 4.5' camera.
3. "Fixed-lens digicam of some kind" The nitpick here is with the use of the term "Fixed-lens," which in photography, "fixed" usually refers to a lens of "fixed focal length," meaning a prime lens, not a zoom lens. It doesn't usually mean a lens that's permanently attached to the camera. Most digital point-and-shoot cameras have permanently attached zoom lenses.
4. "Digital SLR in conventional 35mm size." 35mm is actually an unconventional size for a digital camera sensor. There are certainly several full frame DSLR's out there, but they're the high-end exception. Most are APS-C sized, and then there are the Olympus and Panasonics with 4/3, and probably some other sizes out there. While this list divided film cameras by film size into a comprehensive dichotomy, this classification of digital cameras leaves a lot of cameras homeless, that probably should have fit into this category - aside from APS-C and 4/3, there are a few digital rangefinders, there are Medium Format digitals.
5. "Micro 4/3,Q, or other newfangled mount." The problem here is the attempt to use new mounts to cover a new body type that's become popular. The name for this is still up in the air, but Compact System Camera may be winning. It's the Olympus PEN's and OM-D's, Sony NEX, Panasonic Lumix G series, Nikon 1, Pentax K-01.
6. "Whatever came with the phone." Or came in a phone. Whatever.

Missing from the list is medium format. I shoot Leaf and Phase backs, sensors are not quite full 6×4.5 (56mm × 41.5mm) of 120 film, P40+ is 43.9mm × 32.9mm and Leaf Aptus II 5 is 48mm × 36mm. The sensor sizes change between manufactures and models, just to add even more confusion.

You have to hope your focussing screen shows the correct crop lines, the Leaf screen does not. We're tethered to a computer at all times so isn't really an issue.

So, let me see, the first two options are strictly based on the media and its size (film, millimeters), the third option has to do with the overall size of the camera, the media and the interchangeability of the lens, the fourth option differentiates itself by referring again to the media and its size (digital, 35 mm) while it blurs the waters by throwing a confusing "conventional" in there just for the fun of it, while the fifth option refers to the size of the media (that is implied to be digital) and the type of the mount (which has no relevancy whatsoever to all previous options). At least with a Cowboy Neal option we would have a constant point of reference...

On the other hand, my Pentax 645Nii is about the same size as one of my friend's Olympus DSLR (with a sensor smaller than 35mm equiv.). On the third hand (what, you don't have three?) it is considerably bigger than my favourite 35mm: the light, cheap and small Pentax MV.